Slashdot Mirror

This comes directly from the government website, how can it be fake news? Canada is not the USA, man...

https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/phone/m...

Like you, i enjoy slashdot articles which clearly say things like "TORONTO" but yet someone posts about US laws, US regulators, etc.

Canada also has phone number portability, but this was mandated by the CRTC.

https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/phone/m...

The CRTC has fined companies, for example A $250,000 Reminder that "CASL" is Not Just an Anti-Spam Law

, In that case, the action was taken under Canada’s Anti-Spam Law using section 8 of the Act, which prohibits the installation of software without consent, including malware.

There are at least two class actions waiting for the proclamation of a section which allows American-style suits in additional to prosecution. Guess who they target?

See also https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/interne...

Just looked up my countries goals for internet speeds, http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/internet...

We recognize that a well-developed broadband infrastructure is essential for Canadians to participate in the digital economy. That is why we set new targets for Internet speeds. We want all Canadian homes and businesses to have access to broadband Internet speeds of at least 50 Mbps for downloads and 10 Mbps for uploads.

With the plan that 90% of Canadians have this by 2021. If a large sparsely populated country can aim for 50/10, a country like the USA should be able to as well.

400 pages of regulations wouldn't have been necessary if companies weren't run by lawyers using any trick they can to game the system.

Really? Can you explain how Canada was able to put into place and enforce net neutrality without having to resort to 400 pages of regulations that were written by those corporations under the previous administration. This is how it happened in Canada. And ever since it happened Bell Canada, Rogers, Telus, and so on have been trying to fight tooth and nail to get the rules changed back into their favor.

The entire groundwork of that happened under the Harper government FYI, before someone tries to claim that it only happened because of Trudeau. The Liberals, were against all of this during the days of the Harper government, who threatened to revoke the CRTC's mandate and pass it to Industry Canada if they did anything else.

You have NO idea what you are talking about re: Canada. Netflix has zero, none, nada, Canadian content regulations. Internet has been exempt since 1999, and always will be (probably). You must be from Brazil. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...

People end up paying for both?

Not seeing mobile data doing that until coverage is perfect and the price plummets - at least for Canada. Considering how long people were/are still on dialup past people saying 'everyone has broadband'?

I can't speak to the canadian experience because I don't know the details.

Fair comment, as is my comment that in some situations competition isn't the solution.

The US situation is not readily apparent. You have to have specific knowledge of what is going on at various locations and collect those enmass to form patterns to grasp the climate of the competition environment.

I'm sure that the telecoms on both sides of the border use that argument - and deluge regulatory authorities with detailed information whenever this (competitiveness) issue arises. Niether of us is likely to possess the resources to do that, either for the U.S. or Canada.

To say "just look at canada" without providing the information to actually gauge their competition environment is not useful to me. You would either have to provide me with detailed information especially from competitors to the big three on a case by case basis or I would have to find that information myself.

I don't have the time for that personally and I doubt you're going to provide it.

Can we agree that since niether uf us is going to do the research ourselves we can least rely on regulatory bodies as the "least worst" source of information? That being (hopefully) the case, the following documents are likely to be relevant. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch... http://www.competitionbureau.g... Apart from these documents there is a raft of information/reportage/comment/analysis expressing concern about the Canadian competitive environement in this (telecomms/ISP) sector, from the Prime Minister on down . I doubt that the Competition Bureau or the CRTC would be spending large (by Canadian standards) chunks of cash on the sector if they believed either that the competitive situation was giving Canadians value for money or that the currently inequitable situation would resolve itself without external intervention. Well established oligopolies are very hard to shift and, as I mentioned before, the Big 3 telecomms providers here have been very successful at routing outsiders, even when those outsiders have significant support http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/0... from the (competition friendly) federal government.

So just to be clear... "Well it's better than nothing (so better than Canada)" are you saying that Canadians cannot unlock their phones? If so then either you or I need to update our information because as I understand it we can now request our phone be unlocked after 90 days (in contract) or immediately if you purchase the phone outright. Of course there can be a charge for getting the phone unlocked, unfortunately.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info...

Wow, you are really ok with the government mandating what type of information flows over the internet? That doesn't seem very Canadian at all of you.

Actually, the best arbiter of this would likely be the CRTC themselves. As they said back in 1991:

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

The current conflict is pure posturing on the CRTC's part in an attempt to maintain some sort of relevancy. They should just go away now.

This is about Canadian companies (not Netflix USA, who Netflix doesn't let Canadians use)

No, it isn't. There is no company named "Netflix Canada". Netflix is an entirely USA owned company that has a "Netflix Canada" branding for content they have licensed for distribution in Canada.

CRTC should have no more mandate here than they should over Youtube. In fact, they themselves said in 1999 that they should have no mandate over internet media:

From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

Yes, Canadian TV broadcasters are under CRTC regulation as they are Canadian broadcasters (i.e. Canadian companies). I don't like it either, but I agree they are under the purview of the CRTC.

Netflix is not. They are also not broadcasting. And as the CRTC decided themselves in 1999, should not require a license:

From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...
45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.

Except as everyone is noting here, they are NOT broadcasting.

Exactly, as the CRTC themselves decided in 1999

From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act.

51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.

The CRTC is just posturing.

Then every website in Canada would require a license because it's broadcasting.

No, the CRTC does not license broadcasting that occurs primarily in textual form. That being said, they excluded themselves from "the new media" in 1999.

  From: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/arch...

45. The Commission considers, however, that some Internet services involve a high degree of "customizable" content. This allows end-users to have an individual one-on-one experience through the creation of their own uniquely tailored content. In the Commission's view, this content, created by the end-user, would not be transmitted for reception by the public. The Commission therefore considers that content that is "customizable" to a significant degree does not properly fall within the definition of "broadcasting" set out in the Broadcasting Act. ....
51. Accordingly, the Commission will issue a proposed exemption order without terms or conditions in respect of all undertakings that are providing broadcasting services over the Internet, in whole or in part, in Canada.

No. The CRTC does not have the power to block credit card transactions.

The CRTC has the authority to pull the TV station licenses, pull cable TV licenses, and in general, block or prevent any over-the-air broadcast activity. They also have the authority over any telecommunications providers in canada (over-the-wire or over-the-air.)

Netflix does not fall within any of the CRTC's typical mandates, other than the one that encourages Canadian content. However, the CRTC can only influence Canadian content via its other powers over broadcasters and cable companies.

A full list of the relevant statutes and regulations is at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/statutes-lois.htm.

We don't force you guys to do business in Canada but if you're going to do it you have to play by our rules. Honestly, all the previous posters claiming the CRTC was toothless and all about supporting monopolies are so wrong, they usually get their way and most of the recent changes they forced have been in customers favor. Example:

CRTC wireless code comes into force: Canadians can cancel their contracts without penalty after two years : http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com1... Slapping down internet throttling by ISP and net neutrality violators: https://openmedia.ca/news/bell... etc.

Canada passed a new law regarding spam in electronic messages (in particular, email) starting July 1

the law is here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
faq is here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com5...
the potential fine is $10 million

The companies that are effected are legitimate ones who do business in Canada
The onus on proving you have permission to send an email is on the company sending it.
There has been a flurry of activity wanting permissions recently due to the legislation.
It seems that nobody really knows what it means to be identified as a spammer.

Microsoft is probably thinking - to hell with it; the risk is too high. The RSS is good enough.

If you think that's what I wrote, perhaps you need to take Basic Reading Skills for $100.00?

The CRTC is supposed to protect culture? Nonsense. How its mandate got extended to that is a classic example of "mission creep". It was supposed to be about licensing radio and tv broadcasters. The "Canadian Content" requirements are a joke. Example: Bryan Adams (a Canadian) is not considered "Canadian content" for purposes of air play.

It should go back to its original purpose - making sure that the public spectrum is allocated in such a way that broadcasters don't step on each others signals. The other function of the original CRBC (which was the antecedent to the CRTC), you can figure out from their own web site

When Parliament formed the first Royal Commission on Broadcasting, it recommended that Canada have a national broadcasting network, supervised by an independent federal agency. In 1932, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (CRBC) was established.

The CRBC both provided a national broadcasting service and regulated all broadcasting in Canada. With its regulatory responsibilities, the CRBC was the earliest version of the CRTC.

... was delegated to the CBC in 1936.

Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-6 Section IV

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/dt2008-6.htm#m4

(as for what role the CRTC has in such matters... you can look that up yourself, but they do have the force of law behind their decisions)

No, the CRTC.

The CRTC isn't elected, but the CRTC reports to parliament via the Minister of Canadian Heritage (straight off the CRTC FAQ page), who is elected. So, write a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who at the moment is the Honourable James Moore, whose page in the capacity of minister is at: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/minstr/moore/index-eng.cfm, complete with contact information. Also available in French, of course. On top of that, write your own MP and the CRTC itself with your concerns.

The amount of political pressure the government can apply to the CRTC is intentionally limited in some ways, but if the CRTC isn't doing their job, then the CRTC is ultimately accountable to parliament and will get called on it, especially if the opposition parties get a hold of it and push the issue.

All of this assumes that our parliamentary democracy is still working the way it is supposed to, something that the current government certainly isn't particularly known for. In a majority situation they'll probably be inclined to pay even less attention to it. In any case, sitting back and griping about it won't accomplish much. Talk to what representatives we do have access to.

Money, hell; follow the employers. The CRTC's Vicechairman of Telecom worked for Rogers for 17 years. The Ontario regional commissoner worked for Alliance Atlantis, Atlantic/Nunavut was VP of Access, Quebec spent two decades at CBC, and Manitoba/Sask spent two decades at SaskTel. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/about/commissioners.htm Not to say the whole batch of 'em are crooked, but it seems like half the commissioners they've got don't just have industry experience, they worked for the companies they're now in charge of regulating. I don't know about you, but the Rogers group not even being /investigated/ for egregious harm to network access, while the CRTC telecom VP used to work for them, seems mighty suspicious.

Who are you using? I've lived in three major Canadian cities and never had trouble finding an ISP with unlimited bandwidth. Hell, even when Shaw had a 20GB limit back in 2000 they only got mad when I downloaded about 250GB in a month. No extra fees, just a sternly worded letter.

It doesn't matter anymore. January 25th the CRTC screwed us. Their ruling sets a standard that applies across all DSL resellers. Bell paid for this ruling, and it applies to anyone who is connected to a Bell DSLAM. (That is... everyone except customers of MNSi here in Windsor. MNSi has their own DSLAMs in four COs.)

This applies to dry-loop customers as well. It doesn't currently apply to business customers, although what I've been seeing is that a 300G per month cap has been placed on Business DSL customers. Given 5Mbps service allows download of a good 1.5TB or so of data, being allowed to use 20% of your available ability kind of sucks.

Currently this doesn't apply to cable Internet service. Expect Shaw, Rogers and their kin to petition the CRTC for similar rules regarding 3rd-party ISPs on their network. It's probably only a few months before this applies to cable as well, potentially with different specific numbers.

Final detail... we're talking Ontario and Quebec at the moment.

Here's some info.
http://openmedia.ca/meter
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm

I'm having difficulty figuring this one out. I've had a bit of correspondence with TekSavvy, and they tell me they have no intention of changing their unlimited plan (which I'm using). I'm definitely over the 60G limit the news article is talking about. So either (1) Teksavvy is a bunch of idiots and cannot possibly stay in business, being charged more by Bell than they're getting from me, or (2) the situation is not as it's being understood. I looked at the CTRC ruling itself, and I am no clearer. It's full of acronyms like GAS and UBB. Yes, it explains that GAS is Gateway Access Service, but what is that? Could it be that the particular kind of Bell service Teksavvy uses isn't what this ruling covers? Could it be that this ruling applies to a very specific kind of service for which it's actually reasonable? I find the situation clear as mud.

Record companies aren't at the table here, or are you implying the copyright board is in the pocket of the record companies and just a 'vendor'?

The copyright board of Canada serves more functions than mere disbursement back to record companies. A significant portion of the percentage paid by new licensees (broadcasters) is for Canadian Content Development.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/cancon/r_support.htm

Companies such as Pandora and Sirius have ways around Canadian content regulations, therefore their expected cut of Canadian Content Development is significantly higher.

An artist that is semi-successful in Canada makes less than a McDonalds employee due to the small number of Canadians to whom to sell their music. A similar level of moderate success for an artist in the USA means you get to see them on 'Cribs'.

Canada's copyright board is not a 'vendor'. Canada's copyright board exists to keep Canadians making music, to put money back to the rights holders ('vendor') and to protect the existing players through essentially a punitive tariff. I would agree that parts 2 and 3 are not so great, which supports your earlier post. Ultimately the copyright fees are a cost of doing business and have shown to be negotiable.

I certainly would not call that a 'non-starter'.

Go back to the shareholders and tell them 'Sorry, we walked away from a deal that would add several million annually to revenue because we'd only get to keep half' The cost to Pandora to sell here is minimal, so does it really matter? They are throwing away revenue as every Canadian that I know that understands how Pandora works would probably sign up.

Pandora needs to get off the horse and get down to business.

I thought CRTC 2009-657 was bad, allowing Bell to charge resellers $1/GB over 300GB: per customer. Most webhosts in Canada charge $3/GB or less; and even that is expensive. It appear bandwidth is getting more expensive, not less expensive in Canada.

After that decision, I priced using Avian carriers for high bandwidth, high latency connections:

• About 10 cents per GB.km; cost increments by whole Gigabytes, minimum distance 10km.
• Moving 100 GB down the Edmonton-Calgary corridor would cost ~$3000.
• Parcel rates would be costed on a per flight.km basis (So you can save using your own USB key).

The difficulty is that the pigeons would require couriers to move them to their starting points. If the data is really not time-sensitive, why not use a courier to start with?

Another concern is that for long distances, fibre-optic may be cheaper; even at the inflated rates.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/warning.asp?page=internetEng.htm&lang=E

The CRTC has approved Bell Canada's request to bill internet customers, both retail and wholesale, based on how much they download each month.

I think Bell needs to work harder on providing Broadband to all Canadians rather than ripping off those who already have it.

CRTC = Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
In other words, the Government regulators approved this.
You have a problem with it, take it up with them

CRTC in Canada already controls TV, magazine publications and other media - blocking media without sufficient French content amongst other rules.

Not true.

1. The CRTC is the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission. Similar to the FCC in the USA. As you might guess from their name, they have no control or jurisdiction over magazines.

2. The CRTC doesn't block media without sufficient French content. There are many, many TV & radio stations with ZERO french content. The CRTC does require TV & radio stations to have a minimum CANADIAN content, which is very different.

If you're going to bring up Canada's language issues, you could at least get your facts right.

"I'm sorry sir, before uploading to the web your home made porn must be subtitled in French, credit attribution must be given for French kissing and your wife is not allowed to shave her legs"...

I assure you that french Canadian women do shave their legs, quite different from their french European counterparts.

MTS Allstream, the company leading this campaign, is a bit of a hypocrite here. They don't share their fibre optic cable network with anyone. They won't let private businesses lease their fibre optic cable network. You can see their defence of this position on the CRTC website @ http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-9.htm

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-484.htm

UBB, that's bad

... here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/dt2008-17.htm

and, well, blow me down, I'm almost proud to say that it is a damn reasonable decision. Based on what I read (an not what people are suggesting it means), all it really says is that....
T1 lines will no longer be 'controlled' services in 5 years time.... (i.e. the govt will no longer regulate T1 access).... but, on the up side....

for the forseeable future, ADSL service will be regulated, the price will continue to be 'fixed' using the same price structures as they ghave been for years (govt. regulated cost + 15%)... and competition will continue to have access to co-locate to continue servicing things...

further, the decision stipulates that the monopolies can not mandate the type of service on the local loop (i.e. Bell has n control over what types of service are operated on the 'last mile'....).

In essence, I can't see any degrading of the system by this decision.

I will NOT sign the petition, and, in fact, after reading the deciison, I am motivated to write in PRAISE of the CRTC.

gus

LOL, you think Industry Canada can't do this as well (8.2b)? Hell, in Canada the Queen can comandeer any radio transmitter she likes, by law (7.1).

At least in the USA, if you get a license, you can broadcast just about anything you like, as long as it meets some basic obscenity guidelines (and even those tend to be relaxed for radio). In Canada, radio and TV stations are told just how much non-Canadian content they'll be allowed to play each hour. And that's just the start... In this country you're not even allowed to pay the broadcaster to receive a broadcast if it's isn't approved by the government (don't get any funny ideas, decrypting it without paying is illegal too) (9.1cd).

Attempting to get a license for a low-power "indy" station requires going to court in this country.

To rub salt into that wound, an attempt was made only a few years ago to pass laws that would prohibit the import of any receiving equipment that wasn't approved by a government licensed broadcaster. Lucky for us, the government changed hands before a vote could be held.

Canada has one of the most restrictive sets of laws governing broadcasts of the entire free world. The only way I can think of to make it worse would be to require payment to the CBC to receive their broadcasts, similar to paying the BBC to watch TV in the UK.

The teksavvy email every customer got, nice to see an ISP fighting filtering even if it is for their benefit. The enemy of my enemy I guess...

Dear Valued Customer,

We are writing to you today as many activities are underway to shape/reshape
Internet use as you all know it. Over the last year some of you have been
made aware and/or have seen activities on throttling in the news or in your
daily lives. Another proceeding relating to the Internet in Canada required
Telecom providers (Bell/Telus/etc.) to provide ISPs with wholesale service
speeds that match those that they offer to their own retail customers.
Specifically, Bell has been directed by the CRTC to provide matching speeds
which would allow us all to have more flexibility in our day to day online
requirements. Instead of adhering to these directives, Bell decided to take
this issue to the federal Cabinet and at the same time file a tariff
application with the CRTC proposing to introduce Usage Based Billing (UBB)
on its wholesale customer accounts.

What does this mean for you, the consumer?

Bell provides TekSavvy with last mile, wholesale DSL access services, which
TekSavvy uses to provide you with your Internet access. If Bell were to be
allowed to introduce UBB on this service, a cap of 60GB would be imposed on
all of its users, with very heavy penalties per Gigabyte afterwards
(multiple times more than our current per Gigabyte rate of $0.25/GB on
overages). This would inherently all but remove Unlimited internet services
in Ontario/Quebec and potentially cause large increases in internet costs
from month to month.

If you'd like to make your comments/concerns known about what Bell is
attempting to do, please do so here:

http://support.crtc.gc.ca/crtcsubmissionmu/forms/Telecom.aspx?lang=e [crtc.gc.ca]

Select the word "Tariff" from the drop down list.

Add the following in Subject Line "File Number # 8740-B2-200904989 - Bell
Canada - TN 7181" and make your thoughts known!

The full decision
In case anyone wanted to read through it. I didn't see a link from TFA.

the general course of action is to complain to the CRTC and then get the CRTC to fuck Telus up pretty good.

Unfortunately, the CRTC won't do anything for cell service.

This is why the cell companies continue to get away with the "system access fee" and other such BS.

Take a look at CAIP's filings before the CRTC- here

Screenshots, affidavits, letters to the commission. Depends on how the throttling works, but if it really is as simple as "After twenty minutes of heavy use the connection is throttled", that should be relatively easy to show in screenshots, as CAIP did.

More interesting than the bell data are the responses from the other concerned parties.

Specifically, the response from Skype is a good read. The response from Cisco is pure crap and doesn't directly address the issue at hand.

Anyways, if you want to see the data yourself, look at the links here.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/c51_200805153.htm

Bell zip file with data:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153_1/920764.zip
Note that all the Bell responses are in .doc. Go figure.

Skype response:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920240.PDF

Cisco BS:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920258.PDF

More interesting than the bell data are the responses from the other concerned parties.

Specifically, the response from Skype is a good read. The response from Cisco is pure crap and doesn't directly address the issue at hand.

Anyways, if you want to see the data yourself, look at the links here.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/c51_200805153.htm

Bell zip file with data:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153_1/920764.zip
Note that all the Bell responses are in .doc. Go figure.

Skype response:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920240.PDF

Cisco BS:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920258.PDF

More interesting than the bell data are the responses from the other concerned parties.

Specifically, the response from Skype is a good read. The response from Cisco is pure crap and doesn't directly address the issue at hand.

Anyways, if you want to see the data yourself, look at the links here.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/c51_200805153.htm

Bell zip file with data:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153_1/920764.zip
Note that all the Bell responses are in .doc. Go figure.

Skype response:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920240.PDF

Cisco BS:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920258.PDF

More interesting than the bell data are the responses from the other concerned parties.

Specifically, the response from Skype is a good read. The response from Cisco is pure crap and doesn't directly address the issue at hand.

Anyways, if you want to see the data yourself, look at the links here.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/8622/c51_200805153.htm

Bell zip file with data:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153_1/920764.zip
Note that all the Bell responses are in .doc. Go figure.

Skype response:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920240.PDF

Cisco BS:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8622/c51_200805153/920258.PDF

You'll notice that when you chose internet it directs you to the link that i posted above, explaining the CRTC does not have jurisdiction over internet services because they are now a "competitive market".

Link: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/warning.asp?page=internetEng.htm&lang=E

Complain here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/Register.asp?lang=E

Did Sympatico throttle on a user-basis or based on geography? Either way, there must be some sort of legal recourse that the wholesalers could take?

I attempted to make a complaint in regards to Bell's heavy handed ways a few months ago through the CRTC only to be sent to this link: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t1003.htm . Which essentially says "You're shit out of luck because the "market is competitive", and we all know that is just an absolute crock. All this infrastructure was essentially built with Canadian Taxpayer money when Bell was a monopoly, so how Bell can't be responsible to any public agency is just disgusting.

Thanks for the link. And there's a whole crapload of stuff being deregulated by this decision, to see what will be phased out read the end of the decision.

There's a lot of technical stuff in there I don't understand, but I can't see how letting the market forces reign in Canada will result in anything other than the big players swallowing up the small ones. It's been happening with the cable industry here for years, and with the DSL market, too. That's what happens when the fibre-optic backbone is owned by one or two companies.

It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see

Wrong on two counts.

In Canada, hate speech is illegal. "... advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." source. This law was upheld by the supreme court in R v. Keegstra.

In Canada, broadcast stations are mandated by law to have a certain percentage of Canadian content, or CanCon. In the past, when the only providers were American, this law was used to forbid Canadians from receiving direct-to-home satellite transmissions, and has also been used to argue in favour of regulating Internet content to ensure CanCon was respected.

...There are two main areas of concern from a Canadian perspective -- broadcast regulation and copyright fees. The broadcast side is surprisingly regulation-free ...

Actually it's quite unregulated because the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) chose to not regulate Internet broadcasting... back in 1999.

Then again, we're also allowed to say "fuck" on the radio, unlike our American cousins....

Unfortunately for your argument, it's the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission link, so it may well be within their jurisdiction.